4.4 Article

Effect of body mass index on mortality and clinical status in rheumatoid arthritis

期刊

ARTHRITIS CARE & RESEARCH
卷 64, 期 10, 页码 1471-1479

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/acr.21627

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To study the relative risk (RR) of all-cause and cause-specific mortality in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) associated with body mass index (BMI), and to quantify the clinical and outcome consequences of abnormal BMI. Methods We studied mortality in 24,535 patients over 12.3 years, dividing patients into 3 age groups, <50, 5070, and >70 years and fit Cox regression models separately within each age stratum. We used BMI categories of <18.5 kg/m2 (underweight), 18.5 to <25 kg/m2 (normal weight, reference category), 25 to <30 kg/m2 (overweight), and =30 kg/m2 (obesity). Results BMI =30 kg/m2 was seen in 6368% and underweight in similar to 2%. Reduction in the RR (95% confidence interval [95% CI]) for all-cause (AC) and cardiovascular mortality was seen for overweight (AC 0.8 [95% CI 0.8, 0.9]) and obese groups (AC 0.8 [95% CI 0.7, 0.8]), with and without comorbidity adjustment. Underweight was associated with increased mortality risk (AC 1.9 [95% CI 1.7, 2.3]). By contrast, obesity produced profound changes in clinical variables. Compared with normal weight, the odds ratio in the obese group was 4.8 for diabetes mellitus, 3.4 for hypertension, 1.3 for myocardial infarction, 1.4 for joint replacement, and 1.9 for work disability. Total semiannual direct medical costs were $1,683 greater, annual household income $6,481 less, pain scores 1.1 units higher, Health Assessment Questionnaire 0.28 higher, and EuroQol utility 0.7 units lower in the obese. Conclusion Overweight and obesity reduce the RR of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality across different age groups and durations of RA. By contrast, overweight and obesity are associated with substantial increased risks of comorbidity, total joint replacement, greater pain, medical costs, and decreased quality of life.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据